Home› All Other Feature Requests and Ideas
We appreciate you taking the time to vote and add your suggestions to make our products awesome! Your request will be submitted to the community for review and inclusion into the backlog.

We recommend reviewing what is submitted before posting, in case your idea has already been submitted by another community member. If it has been submitted, vote for that existing feature request (by clicking the up arrow) to increase its opportunity of being added to Cireson solutions.

For more information around feature requests in the Cireson Community click here.

Knowledge Article - option to acknowledge feedback - perhaps with relevant progress statuses

Sean_TerrySean_Terry Customer Advanced IT Monkey ✭✭✭
edited May 2017 in All Other Feature Requests and Ideas
Would be good to have an option to acknowledge comments added to knowledge articles, perhaps with some status such as 'in review', 'in progress', 'completed'. Would help end users track updates.
16
Up Down
16 votes

Submitted · Last Updated

Comments

  • Dakota_GreenDakota_Green Member Advanced IT Monkey ✭✭✭
    Got to add a +1 to this!
  • Rick_HancksRick_Hancks Customer Adept IT Monkey ✭✭
    I agree this would be a nice feature.  This feature is used when users come across articles that need quick and minor updates.  We make the updates and then delete the comments.  Today I copy the comments to a spreadsheet and then manage the work status and acknowledgement manually outside of Cireson.  It would be nice to have this as part of the tool.
  • Sean_TerrySean_Terry Customer Advanced IT Monkey ✭✭✭
    This would be very useful!
  • Brett_MoffettBrett_Moffett Cireson PACE Super IT Monkey ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think this request is not getting the love it deserves and I want to give it a bit more detail and see if we can get these features in the product.

    Let me ask those of you that have voted a few questions to see if we can nail down specifics.
    1. The need to add a status property to the Comment that has been provided on a KB article.
      This would be an enumeration list (defined in the portal not in SCSM. similar to the other KB enumeration lists like Category, Status and Type.)
    2. Is there also a requirement for there to be an "Owner" of the comment so someone knows who is responding to the comment or responsible for editing the KB article in general?
      OR
      Is the person who is responsible for the KB article the person who is the go to person for this regardless of who's editing it?
    3. Is there a requirement to track the date and time of the status changes for auditing purposes?
    I personally also think there should be a review date property that gets filled automatically, based on a setting, that could be reported on in the KB Dashboard. I've raised this as a new Feature request: https://community.cireson.com/discussion/4813/review-date-property-for-knowledge-base-kb-articles/p1
  • Sean_TerrySean_Terry Customer Advanced IT Monkey ✭✭✭
    Hi

    1. Yes - That would be great.
    2. It would be good to gather details on who added the comment and a quick method of contacting them. It would also be good to establish an owner of who was reviewing it etc. However, in my company it would be better if this was a department rather than an individual, who may forever be responsible for responding to that user going forward. It would be more for the end user if they notice something has been at a particular status for a while, they know who to contact for an update. 
    3. Yes, absolutely. I have no doubts that our staff would expect a certain SLO around changes so it would only be a matter of time before someone wants to measure it. 

    In some ways it would be ideal if a comment created a service request of some kind for the Service Desk.
  • Brett_MoffettBrett_Moffett Cireson PACE Super IT Monkey ✭✭✭✭✭
    Having a comment automatically raise a service request might not be a great path as the comments might be positive and not need review.
    However, you could always setup a process that when the status of the KB article changes to a new status, maybe "In Review" that a new SR could automatically be raised that way.
    Then assigned to the analyst who is responsible for the edits.

    The KB article itself can have a primary owner and that primary owner could be an AD group.
    Therefore any SR's that are raised could be assigned to that group rather than an individual.

    The other 3 points all make sense though so i will try to put some better wording around the process.
Sign In or Register to comment.